the great thing about this is that seeing as i'm a bit skint at the minute i can now sell most of my weight plates to some mug who actually still believes that lifting heavy things makes your muscles grow! how smug i will be with my pockets full of cash and muscles bulging, all thanks to this advance in scientific understanding.
before i commit to this i need to know- can i sue the bastards if somehow this doesn't work out quite how i would like it to????

I just hate how news sources and blogs convey findings of a studies. They sensationalize a study as if any previous research is null and void. "Well obviously everything changes now!" No. It doesn't. Two studies aren't equivalent to an entire body of research.

Usually I would say that people with PhD's are generally very smart in their area of expertise, but can be comically inept outside of it. But presumably since this is their research paper this <i>is</i> their area of expertise.

Yes, but that area is not strength training, it's research thereon. Which is to say, they're trying to get shit published, not get stronger themselves.

As an alumnus of McMaster University, I apologize for this. The school receives hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants and the health sciences department had to produce something. The picture corresponding with the article is just precious, don't you think?

At least the gym at Mac has six squat racks. They're all Hammer Strength garbage racks, but that's still five or six more than your average commercial gym.

"Our study provides evidence for a simpler paradigm, where a much broader range of loads including quite light loads can induce muscle growth, provided it is lifted to the point where it is difficult to maintain good form

How simple is it to just do sets across of 5 with a little more weight each time? Have this research been reading too much Flex?

There are thousands of PhDs handed out each year and I doubt many are worth the paper they are written on. The problem is that a candidate comes up with a thesis and in order to get a good grade figures they must prove the thesis correct. They will do this regardless of what the research results actually indicate. The candidate has to come up with a "new" idea and then prove it right in order to pass. So they set up testing and research with the intent of a desired result. If a result contradicts the thesis, it can easily be dismissed. And the conclusions that are drawn can be whatever the researcher/candidate wants them to be. There is little chance of honesty in the process. This is a problem with academia in general.
The study showed that using 80% for 3 sets increased muscle volume by 7.2% compared to 6.8% when using 30% for 3 sets.
The study showed that using 80% for either 1 or 3 sets increased isotonic strength, but using 30% did not.
The conclusion drawn is that using 30% 1RM provides that same training bennefit as using 80% 1RM.

The only way to reach that conclusion is to have drawn the conclusion prior to conducting the study and fear disproving your thesis.

There are thousands of PhDs handed out each year and I doubt many are worth the paper they are written on. The problem is that a candidate comes up with a thesis and in order to get a good grade figures they must prove the thesis correct. They will do this regardless of what the research results actually indicate. The candidate has to come up with a "new" idea and then prove it right in order to pass. So they set up testing and research with the intent of a desired result. If a result contradicts the thesis, it can easily be dismissed. And the conclusions that are drawn can be whatever the researcher/candidate wants them to be. There is little chance of honesty in the process. This is a problem with academia in general.
The study showed that using 80% for 3 sets increased muscle volume by 7.2% compared to 6.8% when using 30% for 3 sets.
The study showed that using 80% for either 1 or 3 sets increased isotonic strength, but using 30% did not.
The conclusion drawn is that using 30% 1RM provides that same training bennefit as using 80% 1RM.

The only way to reach that conclusion is to have drawn the conclusion prior to conducting the study and fear disproving your thesis.

This post is completely full of it. PhD candidates are not judges by their ability to prove a thesis but by their ability to apply the scientific method to a problem. This study shows that this group of exercise "scientists" does not have the ability to think critically, nothing more.

Apparently I pissed on your diploma, you'll be OK by tomorrow. I agree that the criteria used to judge should be application of logical data collection and analysis. However, I feel that the explanation for the numerous poor studies that are published every year is most likely pressure to prove the thesis correct, whether the pressure is real or only percieved. If you believe that it is a more likely explanation that the PhD candidates, researches, scientists and publishers of all of these studies are simply incompetent, I will not argue with you further.